Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 6

Correction to Information on Marriage Forms

{{editprotected}} The Marriage section currently states "Sahaja Yoga hosts a voluntary arranged marriage system. In India those interested need to fill in a form detailing their backgrounds." There are 2 problems with this: firstly, the page referenced has been blanked and should be changed to an archived version; secondly, the words 'In India' should be removed as this is an international site and the page does not mention that the forms are only for people in India.--Simon D M (talk) 10:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

If the site no longer states that then it shouldn't be used as a source. Also the mirror of the source mentions the marriages being held in India. Sfacets 11:02, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Firstly, the page was on the site for 2 years and gives important information. Secondly, there is no harm in mentioning that the marriages are held in India, but one should not suggest that the forms only apply to those living in India. Indeed the form asks for nationality as well as country of residence (as well as income in dollars). --Simon D M (talk) 12:30, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

The question isn't about what the forms ask - it is wether the forms are used in different countries. The mirror of the link you provided describes marriages held in India and is 2 years old. Conceviably something has changed in that period - which could be why the page no longer exists. Sfacets 12:56, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Correct, and the fact the form asks what country the applicant is in, demonstrates that it is used in different countries. The fact that such forms are used in different countries (eg the US) is further demonstrated by thispage. A similar marriage form can also be found on the Romanian SY site and is dated 2007.--Simon D M (talk) 13:04, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it shows that people of different nationalities got married in India that year. Add a real reference if you have one. Sfacets 13:06, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That people of different nationalities get married in India is exactly what I have been saying all along. However, thispage shows that forms are also used for marriages in the US. --Simon D M 13:14, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

So use that link. Sfacets 13:41, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

That link does not link to the forms. --Simon D M 13:51, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Too bad you can't have it both ways then. Sfacets 13:53, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, the originally suggested link is valid. That validity is supported, and your objections overridden, by the other links. --Simon D M 15:37, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

But it isn't valid... since it is no longer on the website. Sfacets 21:55, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

Webpages disappear for all sorts of reasons, and their disappearance doesn't make the information they contained invalid. If a page is still available through the Wayback machine then it's still verifiable. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 22:03, 30 November 2007 (UTC)

N Edit declined. No consensus at this time. Sandstein 06:38, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

Linking to a webarchive is perfectly acceptable according to Wikipedia policy. It's interesting that after being up for over 2 years, the page suddenly got blanked when WP linked to it. It's as if somebody has got something to hide. --Simon D M 13:31, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Kennedy would agree. Sfacets 08:51, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

This SY page mentions that 82 couples were married in a Crhistmas Puja.[1] Even better, the Queensland Independent has an article on SY marriage.[2] Among other things it says:

• PEOPLE from all over the world were married last month, in a ceremony arranged by the Sahaja Yoga religious organisation at Olympic Park, Sydney. Australian Andrew Bonneau, 25, met his Austrian wife, Sweater Lachine, 23, the day before the wedding ceremony....Leader of Sahaja Yoga in Cairns, Sno Bonneau, said that of the thousands of applications received, only 180 were successful. The marriage ceremony has received much criticism from members of other religious groups....Long-time Sahaja Yogi, Judith Bowden, agreed that there were often massive challenges in making a Sahaja marriage work.

That should be a sufficient source for the existence of arranged marriages. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:38, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think Sfacets is quibbling about the arranged marriage sytem, rather that the same forms (and therefore system) is used in India as in the rest of the world. I've already provided evidence of the forms being used in other countries. The case is closed unless we need to go through a '2 systems' discussion similar to the previous '2 Bohdans' and '2 SY schools in India'. --Simon D M (talk) 11:05, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

You provided no evidence that form were utilized in other countries. Sfacets 10:43, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

You need to read more carefully, I have already stated above that the fact the form asks what nationality the applicant is and what country the applicant is in, demonstrates that it is used in different countries by different nationalities. The fact that such forms are used in different countries (eg the US) is further demonstrated by thispage. A similar marriage form can also be found on the Romanian SY site and is dated 2007. Like the 2 Bohdans and the 2 India schools, you know just as well as I do that there is only one system. --Simon D M (talk) 10:08, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1. There is no form on the first link. 2. Second link point on a blank page. 3. We do not understand "2 bodhans" "2 india schools" etc… 4. A suggestion : India = one country / Pakistan = another country = 2 countries differents nationalities possible cqfd.--Agenor 77 (talk) 10:15, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

1) The forms are referred to. 2) It links to an Excel spreadsheet with the form on, the same one as is on the International site, if you don't have Excel view it in html here. 3) Previous spurious objections. 4) If you are trying to suggest that the forms are only used in the Indian subcontinent then it's news to me that it includes LA and Romania. C'mon guys, give it up, you're not doing yourselves any favours by fighting to suppress a truth that we all know: there's one system, it operates worldwide, it involves the use of forms filled in by the applicant and a leader. Here's another link to the forms on the international site: http://www.sahajayoga.org/swan/view/swan_569_2006.asp - go check it quick before the powers that be hide it. Again, no mention that it's only for Indians, or denizens of the Greater Indian Subcontinent (includes LA and Romania). --Simon D M (talk) 11:14, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No fighting, it is only in your mind. Nobody try to hide anything true here. Just avoiding guys turning upside down everything, I can even say that I got married in Sahaja Yoga. This suggestion has been done by a very good friend. I felt in my heart that he was giving me a good advice. So, I did it. Shri Mataji introduced us to each other (my futur wife and I). We were both pleased appreciating eahc other and then decided to accept (because we could refuse incase you'll try to make people think that it is forced). We are now married since 16 years. 16 year of happiness in a solid and trustfull mariage :) I really have hesitate to write down my reply here, because it's quite personnal and no one wish to talk with someone who will dirt every single word of his own testimony. But in another way, as we can find here people who really dedicated their entire life to spoil such a great hope for humanity, peace giving and love giving, I felt better to give a real testimony. --Agenor 77 (talk) 12:16, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

No problem with that, Mataji did arrange marriages personally, and some of them turned out happy, no doubt about it. However, I'm sure you'd agree that the proportion personally arranged has reduced over time and is not many today, especially since Mataji's 'retirement'. The system referred to on the various links is one international system that includes the use of forms, a practice that has been going on for more than 2 decades. I even cited the official website as saying that Mataji matches the couples in this system, although we all know nowadays that is not true, and in fact it hasn't been true for over 2 decades (although those being matched did not know this). Of course one can argue that all things are done by the Goddess, but that's another issue. I've never suggested that SY marriages are forced, although sometimes there is considerable pressure on people. And I agree that many good Sahaja Yogis have dedicated their entire lives to what they believe is the great hope for humanity, peace and love. --Simon D M (talk) 13:49, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Either your research on SY aren't complete etiher you misandesrtood your obesrvations/notes because it is not "some of them turned out happy" but most of all of them :) Therefore I don't enjoy to work here on wikipedia, because there is too many people who knows how to spoil good things by cunningly biase the main things by editing article in a tricky maner. --Agenor 77 (talk) 16:17, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

People editing articles in a tricky manner? Yes, that is a problem. Category:Wikipedia sockpuppets of Sahajhist ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:48, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

My reply is here [[3]] Sahajhist 22:41, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

The official line is that they are 99% or 95% successful. A year or 2 ago G de K sent round a message admitting that the breakdown rate was around 35% in the first year (I forget the exact figure). Many of those that don't break down are because those in the marriage are gritting their teeth through what they believe is a test by God and/or because they have children. The latter issue doesn't go away even after the couple have left Sahaja Yoga and is discussed in Coney's book. When just one spouse leaves, obviously there are other problems. There are problems outside of SY as well, but these aren't being covered up to the same degree. --Simon D M (talk) 11:13, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Religion organization category

• Shri Mataji has made us aware that all the religions are from the same principle and are to be respected by all of us. She has founded a global religion, Vishwa Nirmala Dharma, which is the innate pure religion, relating to the core experience at the roots of all religions, and She grants this experience to those who ask for it. It is Self-Realization. As a result of Her teaching, many rituals, dogmas or prejudices about religion have been corrected. We respect all the incarnations, prophets and the realized souls of the past. The universal character of this worship can be seen in the Sahaja Yoga publications such as Bible Enlightened, Islam Enlightened and Geeta Enlightened and this culture of spiritual tolerance and understanding can be verified from thousands of Shri Mataji's speeches. [4]
• There can be only one Creator for the whole humanity. Hence, there can be only one religion and only one GOD. Our Holy Mother brought forth this vision, that all human beings are the children of one Almighty God. Shri Mataji says the world needs to be transformed and elevated from this divided world to the higher level of existence, where there will be a single religion "Vishwa Nirmala Dharma" (the religion based only on humanity) which will combine all the highest expressions of the great religion of the past with a more comprehensive scientific understanding of the underlying forces of life. This is a Religion that starts with Self-Realization and is based on Divine love, which is spread all over... in every creation, in every country and in the whole world ...and everyone can feel it through Self-Realization. A religion, which is based on love, joy, unity, collectivity, morale, ethics, and purity, which will lead to a healthy, integrated and balanced life and a balanced Society in turn. [5]

SY is a religion, by its own statements. It's obviously an organization. So the category:Religion organizations appears accurate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 04:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I wonder, because I'm not aware of all these rules here, how can we say this is not an organization ? Give me example of religion which aren't, according to you or wiki, an organiszation please, to let me undertsand your point and why it is so important to put etiket on this matter ?--Agenor 77 (talk) 09:28, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Sfacets deleted the category:Religion organizations from the article, saying that it was an "inaccurate category". I fail to see how it's inaccurate. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 16:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

By saying "[...]this is not an orgnization" I was speacking in general. So if you prefere "what's the point that allow one to assert that "this is an organization" and "this is not an organization" tehrefore I was asking you to give an example about what it is considerate as a non organizationate religion according you / wiki rules / the system here ??? --Agenor 77 (talk) 22:58, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I follow your question. The relevant question here is whether SY is a religious organization. I say that it is, based on sources that call it a religion. Do you disagree with those sources? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

What do you mean by "religious organization ? --Agenor 77 (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Clearly there is an organization. There are governing committees like the WCASY, the VND, the LET, etc, run by people with organizational titles like "national leader". There are schools, hospitals, websites, ashrams, pujas, marriage ceremonies, publications, forms, etc. If there's a hierarchy or property, then there's an organization. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:13, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

And what is bad or wrong within that ? --Agenor 77 (talk) 16:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing at all. I was just explaining why I restored the category. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:28, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Its just semantics. 'Movement', 'religious organization', all much the same. Yogiwallah (talk) 20:43, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

To an extent that is true, although Mataji was still denying SY had any organisation in 1990 (see Hinduism Today, October 1990). For much of the 1970s there may have been some truth in this, but it was still a new religious movement. --Simon D M (talk) 09:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

The above comment appears to be confusing. The subject paragraphs in the beginning are clear in their explanation about the noble cause of Sahajayoga. The interpretation as per individuals convenience is not welcome.--Commwatch 19:14, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commwatch (talk • contribs)

Use of Primary Sources

The name Sahaja Yoga has been trademarked in the US by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma although the term goes back at least to the 15th Century Indian mystic Kabir.[6] [7] There has recently been significant expenditure on legally protecting the term in Europe.[8]

Sfacets deleted the latter sentence saying it was "comment on a primary source". I'd welcome comment from neutral editors on what uses of primary sources are acceptable, what constitutes 'comment' and whether that is acceptable. --Simon D M (talk) 17:36, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Have reviewed WP:OR, there is no doubt that the Wikipedia passage agrees with the primary source. --Simon D M (talk) 17:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

The Problem with Fundamentalist Christian Editors Editing Against Sahaja Yoga

The problem with fundamentalist Christian editors is that they are have serious NPOV issues and intentions behind all their edits, even if they are following the rules. Because Sahaja Yoga is a moderate and tolerant movement it is often attacked by those on the extremities. Practitioners of Sahaja Yoga respect the fundamental right for all to have their own POV however fundamentalism is one thing that is not tolerated and will always be spoken out against. Sahaja Yoga does have some views that would be considered unusual to people of the main stream, and it does question the status-quo in a way that is appropriate in a free thinking and democratic world. For a long time fundamentalist Christianity has had problems with Sahaja yoga for just this reason. It makes sense that fundamentalist Christians and fundamentalists in general feel threatened by the philosophical, historical and social questions Sahaja Yoga raises. In general fundamentalist Christians are against all forms of eastern practices such as yoga not to mention all other religions and are by definition intolerant and arrogant people. Perhaps editors of such persuasion think they are doing Gods work by attacking any other movement or religion, no matter how moderate, that is not compatible with their own belief?

Could all those fundamentalist Christians editors on a crusade against Sahaja Yoga stop editing the Sahaja Yoga Page? Such editors are tampering with the neutrality of this article by using the rules of wikipedia and are thus attacking the fundamental democratic principles behind Wikipedia itself. Should this continue and the neutral editors of the article continue to be attacked, it will not be long before we will bring the fundamental beliefs and true identities of such editors to the attention of the wikipedia Authority. Teamantime (talk) 01:13, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Please address editing of the article rather than the faiths of the editors. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:14, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You know exactly what I am talking about.Teamantime (talk) 02:47, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you're talking about and, unless it concerns editing this article, I don't care. Please explain you deletions. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:23, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You used one sentence from the Bible in reply - I dont personally see how that makes you a 'fundamentalist' or even a Christian. Yogiwallah (talk) 20:37, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please explain why you made all of these deletions of source material. If you think something is in the wrong section them move it- don't delete it. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:15, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

And another major deletion. "very bad English".[9] If there's a grammaticl error then fix it, don't delete an entire section full of sourced material just because there's a mistake in grammar. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 02:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Fundamentalism is only a problem if it is affecting editing adversely, in that regard I only see evidence of SY fundamentalism, no other. --Simon D M (talk) 15:04, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The interpretation of Sahajayoga which is moderate and tolerant is being interpreted as per the concenience of Anti Sahajayoga editors. This interpretation as per Anti Sahajayoga activist's convenience is the core problem. --Commwatch 19:25, 15 December 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Commwatch (talk • contribs)

Where are they ?

Is it true that all the editors who tryed to tell the truth about SY as been banned from wikipedia ? --Agenor 77 (talk) 18:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I've replied on Agenor's talk page. Article talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 21:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms section

The paragraph about the Rome school is essentially pasted from the article about the Sahaja India school. Repeating it here is using undue weight. It should be removed from this article. Freelion (talk) 15:54, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

It's not in the ISPS article. There is a discussion about moving the list of schools to this article, as they fit within SY but not ISPS. --Simon D M (talk) 18:23, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

The move has been completed. --Simon D M (talk) 21:00, 26 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms section - Dr Shehovych

This reference does not contain any criticism of the movement or its founder. I do not see the relevance of it being in this article. Freelion (talk) 15:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

• Also in 2001, Australia's AAP reported that a general practitioner named Dr Bohdan Shehovych had been fined after grabbing a Sahaja Yoga critic "round the head and dragged him over a backyard fence"[107] The physician had been part of a group delivering a letter to the critic from Nirmala Srivastava[107]. In 2004 an Australian medical practitioner[31] called Dr Bohdan Shehovych was made a World Leader in Sahaja Yoga and appointed to the World Council for the Advancement of Sahaja Yoga. [32]

If the person had been fined for speeding, etc, then it would be unrelated and if the person were a minor follower then it would be less significant. But he was fined for attacking a critic of SY, and he became a world leader of the governing body of SY. It's relevant and significant. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:27, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

"The governing body" ? I really don't understand how you can write about SY as we can all see the poor understanding you have... But no need to answer to me, you told me on my talk page as much wikipedia doesn't seek for truth but just need to fill up pages and pages... fundraising, "change the world, all this... yes yes we know now !!! I guess I will be not back for a moment LOL --Agenor 77 (talk) 22:40, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

The " World Council is the highest authority in Sahaja Yoga...the World Council, will be the final deciding authority in Sahaja Yoga collectives...The final authority is the World Council. Everything else emanates from the World Council. ".[10] ·:· Will Beback ·:· 23:10, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

See supra --Agenor 77 (talk) 23:21, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If it is relevant to include information about people who have a close relationship with the movement, then I propose a new section on Simon Dicon Montford, who has had a close relationship with the movement for the last 10 years or more. As a vocal critic of the movement, it would be relevant to highlight his pattern of behaviour. Freelion (talk) 03:13, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As soon as Motford is appointed to the WCASY then his background will become relevant to this article. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:51, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually, and according wiki and it vision of truth, it is just needed to source whatever one wants to add on articles --Agenor 77 (talk) 06:02, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Assertions must be relevant to the topic, be presented with a neutral POV, and be verifiable using reliable sources. Within those limits, and constrained further by an alphabet soup of policies, material on anyone is allowed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 07:09, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

My neutral POV is that Wiki, the gift of knowledge, doesn't seek to record the truth [11] What a gift of knowledge actually (ref on every page). --Agenor 77 (talk) 08:14, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Criticisms section - Sources must support comment

I've removed the following: "Nevertheless the writer was surprised by the "openness" of the practitioners and suggested the possibility that "they genuinely have nothing to hide". He said "one of the key definitions of a cult is the rigour with which it strives to recruit new members" and remarked on the lack of any sales tactics at the Sahaja Yoga program he attended." Firstly, I don't see what this is doing in a Criticisms section. Secondly, the use of the source is selective (mentions 'nothing to hide' possibility but not 'PR charm offensive' possibility) and exaggerates ('lack of any sales tactics' is not the same as having 'had more trouble getting rid of a double- glazing salesman').--Simon D M (talk) 23:50, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

If you want to cherry pick from references to create a critical POV, then it is relevant to balance these criticisms with other balancing statements from the same source. Otherwise you are trying to make a source appear critical when in fact it is more balanced. The fact is, the writer did suggest the possibility that "they genuinely have nothing to hide".

The writer set out to prove or disprove one qualification of Sahaja Yoga being a cult and dedicated a whole paragraph to make the point that there was a lack of any sales tactics. I'll remove the word "nevertheless" if you like, but the rest of it should stand. "lack of any sales tactics" does not exaggerate his concluding paragraph. Freelion (talk) 02:44, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Freelion. The writer set out to prove or disprove one qualification of Sahaja Yoga being a cult and dedicated a whole paragraph to make the point that there was a lack of any sales tactics so it should stand --Agenor 77 (talk) 08:59, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with both Freelion and Agenor on this issue. It's best, when summarizing a source, to include the the range of views expressed. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 20:24, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, I've put all Crace material together, removed the POV comment/re-wording and balanced the cherry-picked positive possibility with the other possibility that was suggested. For the record, it wasn't me who included this article and gave it such prominence. The article relates to cult allegations but says little about criticisms. --Simon D M (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Undid the above revision because it created an unwieldy paragraph. There is no need to quote the source verbatim when a neutral summary can do the job. The paraphrased wording did not express a POV. Also the reference to allegations about Sahaja Yoga making money belongs in the criticisms section. If you like I will add the other possibility to the author's suggestion (Either their openness is a PR charm offensive, or they genuinely have nothing to hide.) Freelion (talk) 03:29, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Currently the 'cult allegations' section is in the Criticisms section. --Simon D M (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote "surprise" although can anyone else verify that it is not expressing a POV to say that the author was surprised? It is easier for comprehension to separate the allegation of "cult" and the allegation of "making money" into separate paragraphs as they are different issues. There is no reason to bunch up all the references from one source into one paragraph.Freelion (talk) 12:09, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Also, does anyone else agree that the following:

"So where was the aggressive recruitment squeeze? The only hints of pressure were the listings of weekly London meetings in the programme and an overhead sign saying that Shri Mataji would be appearing at Holland Park on Monday. As sales tactics go, I've had more trouble getting rid of a double- glazing salesman."

can easily and without POV be summarised as:

"the writer... remarked on the lack of any sales tactics at the Sahaja Yoga program he attended."

Freelion (talk) 12:17, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see no issue here... Sfacets 12:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Let's stay true to the source and not cut out the notable reference to the Cult Information Centre. --Simon D M (talk) 12:20, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Yoga template

Why and how come yoga templet was used in this article and why not cult templet ? --Cult free world (talk) 07:45, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

While personally I see no inaccuracy in calling Sahaja Yoga a cult (from just about any definition), the term is very controversial and would cause unnecessary conflict. Perhaps the most neutral term for Sahaja Yoga is 'new religious movement' and it could have an nrm template like these: Category:New religious movement navigation templates --Simon D M (talk) 11:00, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Practice emphases

mind control and brainwashing is very much part of practice. here is the reference of the same [12]

--Cult free world (talk) 14:28, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as Wikipedia is concerned, Amazon reviews don't count as reliable sources. --Simon D M (talk) 11:02, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

The material has been thoroughly vetted by the scholarly community. This means published in peer-reviewed sources, and reviewed and judged acceptable scholarship by the academic journals.

This is what WP:RS say's, can you cite the specific policy which prohibits Amazon review as “un-reliable” however there are many reference of cult watch groups (rick-ross etc) and some government reports as well, that can be used I guess.

However there is no reliable source for the claim made currently, as it is taken directly from the group site, which is a primary source, and hence cannot be accepted, however a secondary source for the same is acceptable, as in case of above reference, which is a reliable source as per wiki policy.

If my knowledge is incorrect, please correct it.

--Cult free world (talk) 08:37, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

It's more an issue of the Amazon reviews being self-published with the minumum of editing (ie only editing out reviews that generate complaints or break Amazon's policies). Basically anybody can write a review on Amazon and say pretty much what they like, so such reviews hardly make good material to base an encyclopedia on. --Simon D M (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Mind control and brainwashing is part of practice emphasis, agreeing to your view on Amazon review, analysis of rick-ross, and other government report can be used, as a reference to the statement that practice emphasis contains element of mind control and brainwashing. If all editor's agree to these references i will update the article.

--Cult free world (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

see below. --Simon D M (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

hi Sfacets,

With respect to this revert [13], kindly point out where the discussion is ? i have started a topic on talk page, but could not find any input from you, will you be kind enough to provide us, your opinion as why you think that request for citation is not appropriate ? if self realization is practice, then why not mind control and brainwashing ? as far as i think, self realization is an exceptional claim, and primary source cannot be used for such a claim, where as for brainwashing and mind control, there are enough secondary sources available. please provide your input

--Cult free world (talk) 10:13, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-realization can hardly be said to be a practice, but you could say that some of the practices emphasise self-realisation, or at least the SY conception of 'self realisation'. Maybe the template should just go. --Simon D M (talk) 11:08, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no problem with the templet, till all information is presented, both self-realization and brainwashing.

--Cult free world (talk) 11:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I doubt the SYogis will accept it, but then they fight tooth and nail against the exposition of well-known facts like that Mataji is worshipped by them. Saying that SY is involved in brainwashing is POV, but so is the idea that SY has anything to do with 'self realisation' - NPOV requires that all significant POVs are represented. I think the view that SY is mind control is significant enough to be included, if you can dig out the reliable sources. However, I think the best place for it is under the Criticisms section, possibly under the Cult Allegations subsection. I think the yoga template should go because the article is about a 'new religious movement' which is much more than the 'yoga' on which it draws. --Simon D M (talk) 12:07, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Templet gives good information, (afterall wikipedia is about information !) juat that we need to build upon it, not remove it.

--Cult free world (talk) 13:11, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The problem with the reference supplied is that the webpage does not mention brainwashing etc. --Simon D M (talk) 15:58, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Previous Assurance

In this diff you said: "I will stop editing the articles mentioned above for some time, in accordance with genuine requests, and will concentrate on other articles." Are we to understand that, within 5 days of your latest block expiring, you are back to editing the articles in question? --Simon D M (talk) 10:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Sfacets, I asked the above on your talk page but you deleted it without comment. Perhaps you would care to comment here. --Simon D M (talk) 12:38, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Simon D M, please do not harass other editors who work on this article. Freelion (talk) 04:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

From an independent perspective, I don't think that constitutes harrassment. You might be waiting for a while for a response from Sfacets, however - that editor was indefinitely blocked earlier today [14]. Giles Bennett ^{(Talk, Contribs)} —Preceding comment was added at 13:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Ananda Marga Link?

The Ananda Marga wiki page makes the following claim "Anandamurtiiji taught many systems of meditation such as ... Sahaja Yoga ... " Is this true? Is it worth linking? DDB (talk) 09:17, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

No. This article is about the New Religious Movement commonly known as Sahaja Yoga. It is the rediscovery and technique of an ancient system (see Sahaja). Many other NRMs may claim to teach something by the same name, but their technique is different and they are not able to achieve the same results as this NRM, such as vibratory awareness. Freelion (talk) 09:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It is relevant to the section on the term "Sahaja Yoga". --Simon D M (talk) 09:34, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

General Comments on NRM reporting in Press

Eileen Barker from Inform advises that the media is the most influential source of information about New Religious Movements and that the majority of that information is of a negative nature. The media have an interest in attracting and keeping readers, most of whom are likely to be attracted by sensational stories. Suppliers of information may well have an agenda that leads them to adjust their product to meet a perceived demand.

Freelion, do you think that every article on a new religious movement that refers to press coverage should have a paragraph similar to this? Or might it be more parsimonious to have such discussion in one place. --Simon D M (talk) 14:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I've replaced the controversial paragraph with a 'see also' template directing readers to the relevant wp page ie Opposition to cults and new religious movements. --Simon D M (talk) 16:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga hypothesis

Simon u keep changing this without saying why. If you do it one more time i will report you to the administrators for abuse. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Michalis 9 (talk • contribs) 17:08, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

My reason is in my edit summaries: bad english and not backed up by the sources referenced. I suggest you self-revert. --Simon D M (talk) 17:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Changing 'Sahaja yoga teaches' to 'According to Sahaja Yoga hypothesis' is anything but bad english. According to Shri Mataji Herself all the knowledge is to be considered as hypothesis and tested. If this does not agree with your sites, it is not something we should discuss here. Thank you. Michalis 9 (talk) 20:05, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Firsty, it is bad English. Secondly, Mataji has sometimes recommended that sy beliefs be initially treated as a hypothesis but still holds that they are pure knowledge (Nirmala Vidya). Thirdly, as mentioned many times before, I don't have any sites. Fourthly, if you have a point to make, make it in one place rather than trample all over the article ignoring the sources referenced. I suggest you spend some time reading up on basic Wikipedia policy. I will fix the article to make your point succintly in one place and back it up with sources. You might want to follow that example. You should also discuss your many other deletions of notable sourced material before repeating them. --Simon D M (talk) 22:07, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Founder's husband's career history

Aregenor77, this is already in the Nirmala Srivastava article and that of her husband, can you give any reason (other that trying to imply respectability) for repeatedly inserting it in the lead of this article? --Simon D M (talk) 17:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't undertsand what you mean by "other that trying to imply respectability" ? Please argue. By the way, there is no need to make fun with my name... Stop harrassing people once more !!--Agenor 77 (talk) 17:31, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Please just answer the question: can you give any reason for repeatedly inserting it in the lead of this article? Not making fun of name, just couldn't remember it. --Simon D M (talk) 17:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

To answer to your question, I must understand it fully, so, what you mean by "other that trying to imply respectability" ? --Agenor 77 (talk) 17:41, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

That was an aside. Please answer the question: can you give any reason for repeatedly inserting CP's career details in the lead of the Sahaja Yoga article? --Simon D M (talk) 22:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I really need to understand your aside as it was part of your question, pls develop  ? --Agenor 77 (talk) 22:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

If it was an integral part of my question, it wouldn't have been an aside. I'm not interested in side-tracking the discussion. Please answer the question: can you give any reason for repeatedly insertion of CP's career details in the lead of the Sahaja Yoga article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon D M (talk • contribs) 22:26, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

So what is the use to add this in the question ? --Agenor 77 (talk) 22:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm not interested in side-tracking the discussion. Feel free to take the side issue up on my talk page. Now please answer the question: can you give any reason for repeatedly inserting CP's career details in the lead of the Sahaja Yoga article? --Simon D M (talk) 22:36, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes--Agenor 77 (talk) 22:38, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

And what is that reason? --Simon D M (talk) 22:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

It's obvious --Agenor 77 (talk) 01:40, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Discussion cannot proceed unless you make your rationale explicit. What is that reason for your repeated inserting CP's career details in the lead of the Sahaja Yoga article? --Simon D M (talk) 08:54, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Eeverytime I edits this phrase, I give the reason in the edit summary filed. So I really don't understand why we are loosing our time here with your questionning although we can just see that you are really against SY when you add aside like (other that trying to imply respectability). Do i ask you reason for every edit you do here and there although I read the edit summary field ? Stop harrasing and stop vandalism ! Thank you --Agenor 77 (talk) 09:49, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

You only gave a reason in an edit summary once, and that was after (00:41, 5 January 2008) I asked you here 6 times! An edit summary is not an answer to a question on a talk page. The reason you gave was clearly unacceptable: "it's interresting to let the readers knows how Shri Mataji went to England". Many things might be interesting for readers to know, but that does not justify them being put in the lead of one article when they are already mentioned in 2 other more relevant articles (where, for obvious lack of notability, they don't make the lead). I suggest you consult WP:LEAD before making further edits to the leads of articles. --Simon D M (talk) 16:10, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

It is not acceptable by YOU because you dont want positive point on SY as clearly said in your aside... Impartial editor you are --Agenor 77 (talk) 22:20, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Please restrict your comments to the editing, not the editors. I have already explained that edit summaries are not a substitute for discussion on talk pages. I have also directed you to WP:LEAD which clearly states that the lead of articles should reflect the contents of that article, not other articles. Please deal with the substantive points and do not side track. --Simon D M (talk) 23:57, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Your question wasn't clear and I asked you as many time precision about it, no side tracking at all. You harass people with tricky aside, make fun with editor's name, etc... so don't come here or in my talk page with your warning and your so called moral... --Agenor 77 (talk) 07:47, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:FAITH and WP:NPA. It was on Michalis' talk page that I issued a warning on personal attacks, not yours. Although I note from the archive of your talk page that WBB suggested you "familiarize yourself with WP:NPA" back in November. Do you have anything to say about the substantive issues? --Simon D M (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Simon, I suggest you familarise yourself with WH --Agenor 77 (talk) 17:08, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

If you think I have been dishonest over any issue, please take it up on my talk page, leaving this section on-topic. Do you have anything to say about the substantive issues? --Simon D M (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Nothing else, I can't have a normal discussion with you, you harass me by making fun of my name, with "aside" that you never want to explain... Please get back as you said you will to the substantive issues now --Agenor 77 (talk) 17:52, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

The last substantive comment made was as follows: WP:LEAD clearly states that the lead of articles should reflect the contents of that article, not other articles. --Simon D M (talk) 18:29, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Self-realization

Reference given in the templet is a primary source, self-realization is something which is only claimed by all cults, there is no proof from direct perception as such, also as per wiki guidelines extra-ordinary claims need at-least reference form a secondary reliable source.

The templet should contain crisp, to the point, information about this cult, both side's.

--Cult free world (talk) 17:52, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

There's no proof that anybody has ever achieved 'self realisation' through SYoga, and there's no proof that SY is a cult or anybody has ever been 'brainwashed' in it. That's not the issue. The issue is whether there are reliable sources supporting statements in the article. Self-published sources are not the most reliable, but I'm sure Coney refers to SY's emphasis on 'self realisation'. That's the problem with the template, it gives no room for qualification. The article itself makes it clear that SYogis will call somebody 'self realised' even if they've only felt a slight coolness in their hand. The template cannot do that, so suggests that SYoga is achieving much more for people. That's why I'd say the template should simply go. --Simon D M (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

As per wiki, there is more then enough proof, that SY is a cult. there are secondary, reliable and neutral sources available, but what is the source (using similar evidance) for self-realization ? if feeling cold is self realization, then people in tundra region need absolutely no cult at all for self-realization!!

Using same analogy as Agenor 77 brainwashing is obvious hence Agenor 77 will agree with me if we add a section on brainwashing in this article.

--Cult free world (talk) 19:48, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia articles are not considered reliable sources for wikipedia articles. --Simon D M (talk) 21:43, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Which reference are you talking about ? --Cult free world (talk) 08:50, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Cult free world You can't speak for me :D and be shure that I do not agree with you :D And I will certainly never ahree with you :D --Agenor 77 (talk) 10:34, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh that was just a joke... regarding obvious things, which we cannot add in articles, because what is obvious for me, is not obvious for you. :) --Cult free world (talk) 11:58, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not done for that. If you want to joke, please open a blog --Agenor 77 (talk) 17:15, 6 January 2008 (UTC)

Why are you so angry ? Meditation should make a person calm, not loose his cool, that too for humor --Cult free world (talk) 05:38, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest you learn a little bit more about wiki policy. According what I can read from you, you shall start by this —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs) 07:16, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I simply loved that link, thanks, :D, i have made only minor edits, that too, not more then 3 or 4, so far on any article, ofcourse i will not edits anything which i do not know, or am unable to discuss the same on talk page !. Take it light, we can work with a smile. :) --Cult free world (talk) 09:32, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Chakras and Nadis

This section indicates that Sahaja yoga has somehow originated this concept and from style of writing this section it appears that SY has exclusive knowledge about this concept. This however is part of traditional hindu philosophy, and methods and procedures are meticulously elaborated in various vedantic texts including Upnishads. Some information can also be found here also [15] the tone, style of writing and presentation of this section needs to re-looked and changed appropriately so as to make sure, that the article does not become a PR page for SY.

Chakras and Nadis are part of traditional Hindu philosophy and there cannot be any exclusive claim about ownership of the these terms or methods. If any cult claims that it has modified the concept, then that in itself indicates that the cult has belief that the original concept is not valid any more and they have modified the truth to suit present day people. Which should be stated in that manner only, as according to ancient hindu texts, where these concept have originated, are accepted as absolute truth, by those who beleive in ORIGINAL texts rather then its modification by some mordern day cult, Any modification in original concepts indicates that it was not absolute to begin with. Hence this contradiction from original concept must be added in the section.

--Cult free world (talk) 06:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I didn't think the tone came across that way but accept that you do. The WP pages on chakras and nadis are linked which would indicate that they are more general than SY. Also the section ends:

Kakar writes that Nirmala Srivastava's own additions to this widespread traditional trantric model lie in traditional Christian morality, an elaboration of the health aspects and a scientific, neurological veneer.

which I would have thought was pretty clear. I'll change the article to make it clear from the beginning and remove the tags. If you have any more concerns, feel free to replace them. --Simon D M (talk) 10:52, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Modified the wordings for NPOV. forgot to add the texts in edit summary :( --Cult free world (talk) 12:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

You write that SY "uses the concepts originated in ancient Hindu Scriptures,and presents these concepts in a manner which differ from the classic texts ... Tantra however gives more meticulous details about Chakras and Nadis" but you haven't added any sources. Also I really wonder whether the concepts originated in any scripture, surely they existed in somebody's mind before the went into a scripture. I'm also unsure about chakras (apart from heart and brahmarandra in early Upanisads) first appearing in Hindu rather than Tantric Buddhist scriptures (based on Western academic dating), certainly Indian texts precede Chinese or Tibetan. Also Tantra may give different details, but if you were to add up all Mataji's recorded sayings on every chakra I think you'd find the result quite copious. Is the amount of detail that notable anyway? But maybe these issues should be on the subtle body, chakra and nadi pages, and we should just have a brief NPOV statement that errs on the side of caution. --Simon D M (talk) 13:16, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

I had given the reference about the same at the end of the paragraph, there is one more important stage called "Bindu". Regarding presence of this section in SY article, what i can understand is, any body can talk at length about any topic, can publish their material on net, this however comes under purview of Self published material. This article is about SY, and hence putting concepts which we know, are not actually part of this cult's teachings, but belong to an entirely separate concept (Tantra) which is attributed to Shiva. In essence i agree with you that the chart should be removed from article. Tantra and getting people married and divorced do not go hand in hand, as it is established beyond any scope of doubt, that this cult not only forces people to get married (once brainwashing is achieved, forced is not felt by the victim!!) but gets people divorced as well. When we talk about tantra, and accept that originator is Shiva or "Bharave", divorce or forced marriages cannot come into picture, since unfortunately that is the case, hence presence of chart for Chakra and Nadi's is not appropriate in this page, as it seriously undermines the teachings present on original texts. --Cult free world (talk) 17:21, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Oh yes, now I see the "Concept of Sahaja Yoga Charkra's differs from classic concept of Charkra as explained in The tantric chakras" at the end. The problem is, as you point out, that WP:RS states that "Articles and posts on Wikipedia may not be used as sources." I don't think you can really describe SY beliefs without talking about chakras, nadis, kundalini and all the other borrowed/reworked concepts - without them there wouldn't be much left. --Simon D M (talk) 18:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

All that is claimed as part of SY, and all that, which is evident in SY, both points should be present in the article, presence of a chart explaining Chakra's and Nadi's for instance, violates this policy of wikipedia, and biases the page to appear as if SY teaches only about Chakra's and Nadi's, cult allegation on other hand is not that much elaborated, however there is enough sources to quote from, that tight mind control and brainwashing is essential part of overall activities practiced in this cult. People are married based on their association with this cult, people are divorced based on their association with this cult, and then when we find that article about SY, has elaborated chart explaining Chakra's and Nadi's, gives and undue weight-age to this POV. people fall in trap of these type of cults while looking for something similar, and when a wikipedia article give such details about Chakra's and almost no information about brainwashed zombie's, this is injustice. Chart should be removed as it gives prominence to the POV that SY promotes spirituality, whereas facts is, it promotes isolation of the victim, brainwash them and then drain them of their hard earned money and manipulate them to get married and divorced as per wishes of the cult figure Nirmala Shrivastava. (POV). Chart should be removed.--Cult free world (talk) 06:48, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Another way of dealing with the undue weight issue is to add more information on the other aspects of Sahaja Yoga. I agree that chakras/nadis/kundalini/self-realisation (ie the public face of SY) should not be given undue prominence. Take a look at what the page looked like before I got involved. You'll see that I've worked to add in the religious element (eg beliefs, puja, etc) which is largely hidden from newcomers (at least in the West). This is one part of the problem, the page did not even represent the POV of SYs, it was heavily skewed to the POV SYogis want newcomers to have of SY (ie the page was being used as yet another recruitment tool). The page linked to a spin-off page called Sahaja Yoga meditation which was even more heavily skewed to only the publicly acceptable subjects. You'll see the chart was there after being thrown off here at the end of previous discussion, you'll also see that I've added the deities into the chart which are not emphasised in the public facade (in the West anyway). I think it's extremely important the way Nirmala Srivastava has integrated herself into her own theory, and into the bodies of her followers. I think more needs to be done on bringing to light the full scope of SY beliefs and I'm thinking of a section of the Millenarian/World-Condemning aspect of SY belief, as this is discussed by Kakar and Coney. The criticism section has been beefed up to some degree, but there's scope for more if reliable sources can be found. However, the public facade is a part of SY belief and should not be left out. --Simon D M (talk) 11:05, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The chart does not belong in here, explaining something, which is not essential part of this cult, with such detail is not appropriate, that chart belongs here, not in article dealing with a group, which is involved in marriages, divorces, donation, building empire, and asking for absolute self abnegation. your efforts are highly appreciated, section informing that SY talks about Chakara's and Nadi's should be there, but explaining what are various chakra's is not something that Mrs. Srivastava has invented, hence this detail should be moved to location where it belongs, not in a page which discusses about SY.--Cult free world (talk) 16:46, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

The chart in question is not suitable for the chakra page because the Presiding deities and Associated qualities columns are specific to SY to some degree. I comment out the chart for now and if at some time there is enough other material to balance it out, we can discuss restoring it. --Simon D M (talk) 17:13, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the removal. The chart dominated the article while it was in there, even though it was poorly-sourced and appeared to give too much emphasis to chakras in an article about the entire movement. To the extent that there are differences between normal yogic interpretatons of chakras and SY interpretations then that material may be better summarized in text rather than a large chart. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 18:17, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

What is according to you a "normal yogic interpretatons of chakras" ?--Agenor 77 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

That's beyond my expertise. Presumably it's what's covered in the WP article on Chakra. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 19:36, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Is a user named Cult free world really editing this page?

WP:NPOV, WP:COI. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.170.167.142 (talk) 07:51, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

not really the page, have just inserted few minor comments, more focus is on talk page, building a consensus, and then allowing those who are really involved with the topic to edit the article ? please refer to WP:NPA and refrain from indulging in "name calling" Please read the official policy on the English Wikipedia, which clearly state As a matter of polite and effective discourse, comments should not be personalized and should be directed at content and actions rather than people

However i have noticed that you have removed large chunk of information from the page, and have not issued any note what so ever regarding your edits !! please explain the reason for removal of surrender, mind control brainwashing from templet, we will come to other edits after this. keep smiling

((--: :--)) --Cult free world (talk) 10:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:COI

Citing oneself ??

Financial ??

Legal antagonists ??

Self-promotion ?? (don't even have a self on wikipedia...)

Autobiography ?? (don't have one yet !)

Close relationships ?? (with whom)

Campaigning ?? (for whom)

WP:NPOV

Please provide a reference where you feel a POV push ?--Cult free world (talk) 10:29, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that you are campaining. So yes there does seem to be a conflict of interest. Describing something using non-neutral terms is against Wikipedia policy - see policy. Frhermore your username is inapropriate, may be seen as offensive. Please maintain a neutral editing stance and discuss why your unconcealed non-neutral edits should be permitted in the article. 124.170.167.142 (talk) 14:35, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

I would say that you are campaining

How, where and when ? point out the specific edit.

Describing something using non-neutral terms is against Wikipedia policy

Please point out the specific edit, i will be glad to respond, and if my understanding does not comply with any of the wikipedia policy, i will be glad to correct myself, but you will have to point out where, when and how.

Frhermore your username is inapropriate, may be seen as offensive.

By whom ? and why ? i came across various user-names, few funny, few serious, few interesting, after spending months reading wikipedia, i have chosen this user name, why would anybody get offended by this username, till they do not accept that they are brainwashed by some cult. if you feel that Sahaja Yoga is a cult, and my username imply freedom from cults, only from prejudice it can be concluded that this user name advocates some sort of freedom, but for someone to get offended, it requires acceptance that Sahaja Yoga is a cult, till that happens, there is no offense, however once it is accepted that a group is a cult, one would dis-continue its association, hence there will not be any further offense. :--))

Please maintain a neutral editing stance and discuss why your unconcealed non-neutral edits should be permitted in the article.

unconcealed ? did not get this... needs more elucidation, non-neutral ? i tried to balance the page by balancing the prominence. why would an important aspect such as mind control, brainwashing, cult allegation remain hidden and not given appropriate space, along with self-realization associated feeling of cold cold breeze ? why not give equal prominence to both view point and balance the article ?

Yours TRULY --Cult free world (talk) 15:18, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

You are not being neutral because you are stating allegations as fact. Please read the policies on Wikipedia. Also please realize that Wikipedia should not be used as a source. 124.170.167.142 (talk) 21:59, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Similarly we cannot states claims as fact... for example, incarnation (Avtar), this is just a claim, and thus cannot be represented as fact. there are many more such incarnations, ranging from jim jones to Aughad baba, to balance such claims, and avoid any push, few more claims for incarnation should be cited, which i tried, and you have removed it!!

Please explain removal of

1. Sahaja Yoga has been a subject of criticism and has been associated with a number of problems, some arising from "Sahaja Yoga's emphasis on complete devotion to Nirmala Srivastava". Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a cult.

2. Sathya Sai Baba, Rajneesh, Jim Jones and many more modern day self proclaimed saints and sages have also claimed to be an incarnation, citing smiler religious texts, most of them, have been listed as cult figure's.

These edits were honest attempt to balance the article from a biased POV push, removing such neutral information is not justified, as far as i can perceive till now. they were properly sourced and balanced the article from tilting towards what the group wants. please explain the reason as why have you removed these two edits, if you can, then please explain the reason for removed of mind control, brainwashing and surrender from templet, in this exchange itself, otherwise we will come to it later.

If there is no justification for removal of these information, and if there is a consensus, both these edits should be added back in the article. --Cult free world (talk) 04:45, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Just like to say Rajneesh has never claimed to be an incarnation of anything or anyone. The word "cult", when used outside anthropological neutrality, is intrinsically POV - if it were possible to define it (without including large religions), there'd be a law against "cults". —Preceding unsigned comment added by Redheylin (talk • contribs) 01:18, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

Discussion about the term

I have removed the following paragraphs for discussion:

"It has also been used as a synonym for Siddha Yoga and Surat Shabd Yoga. The term is also used to describe the basic meditation practice of Ananda Marga. Rajneesh (aka Osho) also answered a question on 'Sahaja Yoga' on the afternoon of 5 May 1970 at a meditation camp in Nargol attended by Nirmala Srivastava.

In 2000 the term 'Sahaja Yoga' was trademarked in the United States by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma. In 2001 a complaint by Vishwa Nirmala Dharma to the World Intellectual Property Organization regarding the use of the (promotion removed) similar domain name was rejected (despite the dissenting opinion of the presiding panelist), in part due to the determination that 'sahajayoga' is not only a descriptive Sanskrit word but is also a concept dating back to Buddhism adopted by saint Kabir and then also taken up by Guru Nanak in Sikhism' There has recently been significant expenditure by Sahaja Yoga to legally protect the term in Europe."

It seems to me that the above two paragraphs do not serve to improve this article.

The first paragraph tries to discredit this NRM by linking the term "Sahaja Yoga" with some well known destructive cults, the teachings of which have no similarity or outcome with those of Sahaja Yoga. It's a very poor excuse indeed.

The second paragraph is only a vehicle to promote the personal website of a vocal critic of this movement.

I think we can do better, like referencing Sankaracharya who also used the term "Sahaja". Freelion (talk) 11:36, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The point of the section is to deal with how the term "sahaja yoga" has been used because Nirmala Srivastava is not the only person to use it, and not the first either. See the articles on Raja Yoga and Siddha Yoga for similar sections. I've never heard that the Radha Soamis are seen as a destructive cult. As far as Ananda Marga, Siddha Yoga and Rajneesh goes, opinions differ, as they do with Sahaja Yoga [International]. It is certainly notable that Rajneesh answered a question on Sahaja Yoga in Nargol on the afternoon of 5 May 1970. The WIPO case is also notable and set a precedent that has been referred to in later WIPO cases. You don't even know the identity of the owner of the website that sahaja-yoga.org currently points to. Any references to 'Sahaja' attributed to Adi Shankaracharya could be referred to in the Sahaja article.--Simon D M (talk) 13:59, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

"Brahma Satyam Jagan Mithya Jivo Brahmaiva Na Aparah" Brahman (the Absolute) is alone real; this world is unreal; and the Jiva or the individual soul is non-different from Brahman. this is what Shankaracharya preached, Sahaja Yoga is not even remotely associated with teachings of Shankaracharya, and any association of Sahaja Yoga with a great intellectual mind, will be an insult to him. Please stop here only. Shankaracharya's teachings are purely based on "Jana" absolute knowledge, where as Sahaja Yoga teaches absolute devotion/obedience to the leader, which is a characteristic's of a destructive cult [16]. Shankaracharya preached that it is only through argument and counter arguments can truth be established, and debate between him and pandit matuk mishra, is famous for its in depth discussion about Advaita. Regarding incarnation, of Mataji, everyone preaches that there is only one God, creator of mankind etc and from time to time, that God, come down on earth to save people, unfortunately we find way too many incarnations of God here on earth at any given time. all claiming to be same God, is God that weak that it needs to multiply itself, just to manage number of people ? take a look at various such incarnation, start with Sathya Sai Baba and look for link of claimed incarnations...

The way you (freelion) believes that other's are destructive cults other's too have the right to believe that even Sahaja Yoga is also a destructive cult. I am still unable to understand as why list of those who also claim to be incarnation is removed from the page ? jim jones is also one such incarnation. --Cult free world (talk) 15:17, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It'd be a very long section if we were to list all the self-proclaimed gods and goddesses. Maybe Nirmala Srivastava could just be added to List of messiah claimants and/or List of people who have been considered deities. I think that, of all the works attributed to Adi Shankaracharya, the Sahaja Yogis would most closely identify with Saundaryalahari as it praises the Goddess and mentions Kundalini - NS claimed that it contains an accurate description of her, even her knees. I guess most Sahaja Yogis would just scratch their head if presented with the bhashyas or the Upadeshasahasri. --Simon D M (talk) 15:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

What exactly was needed, i have added, please comment. --Cult free world (talk) 17:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to list other self-proclaimed saviours, also your choice of an alleged pedophile and the leader of a suicide cult could be taken as POV-pushing. I'll alter what you have written to something a little less inflammatory. --Simon D M (talk) 12:09, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

124.170.164.157, pls use talk page, before reverting edits of other user's, we are trying to build a consensus --Cult free world (talk) 06:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. And at the moment there is only concensus among the "anti-Sahaja Yoga" editors. I've taken out the reference to the personal website in this section because it is a gratuitous self promotion (Simon DM owns the domain). 203.110.151.250 (talk) 01:23, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Moderation

I would suggest requesting moderation by a neutral non-contributing third party - since any consensus reached between editors with COI is debatable. 124.170.164.157 (talk) 11:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Do you think that a serious enough attempt at achieving consensus has been made? Apart from that issue, I would be happy to see neutral parties getting involved, in whatever capacity. Will BeBack has been the only neutral party to take an interest so far. --Simon D M (talk) 11:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I suggest placing a Request for mediation so a neutral editor can help sort things out. 124.170.164.157 (talk) 21:27, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for your suggestion. However, until you can explain why your contributions are limited to Sahaja Yoga topics I will not be wasting anybody's time with the penultimate step in the dispute resolution process. --Simon D M (talk) 11:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

My contributions range to many topics - and as I mentioned earlier, I prefer to leave my main user account to article contributions and remain signed out for administrative duties (spam, cleanup, neutrality...). The contributions you see under this IP address are limited to the articles I edited while using this IP address (which changes every so often). 124.170.164.157 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Could you let us know one of the other IP addresses you have anonymously edited from? --Simon D M (talk) 15:31, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't know anymore - my ISP changes my IP weekly on average. 124.170.228.9 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

OK, I just thought that you'd at least be able to remember some of the pages you had anonymously edited and figure out one of the IPs from there. --Simon D M (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

what is the dispute ? --Cult free world (talk) 11:19, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

As far as I can see, looking at the history of the article and the parallel discussions there are multiple issues on both sides - mostly neutrality based with both proponents and opponents of the NRM inserting non-neutral content or removing content they don't see fit. There are obvious COI and neutrality issues at play here. 124.170.164.157 (talk) 13:34, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that anonymously wading into a content dispute, pointing out COI, with a Contributions list that only covers the content in question, is the best way to build trust. I know you haven't transgressed in any way, and I don't mean to be unfriendly, but given the history of vandalism and disruption from anons and socks from your country, surely it would be better to come back with your username and make a contribution towards improving the article. --Simon D M (talk) 14:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't really need your trust - the point is I'm not offering to mediate here, or contribute to the article (having little knowledge of the subject). All I know is from what I can see on the article history and the discussion page which shows that there have been multiple instances of COI/biased editing, and am suggesting that rather than continue to edit the article in a non-neutral manner, seek moderation and talk it through. 124.170.228.9 (talk) 22:15, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

The page has calmed now so it's not such an issue. At one point I did consider seeking mediation but I felt I would be wasting a lot of innocent people's time, dragging them into a hornet's nest. If the pages turn into a battleground again I'll consider it again. --Simon D M (talk) 22:58, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. 124.170.169.126 (talk) 02:28, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Removal of allegations v/s Self claimed substances

Recently it has been noted that allegations, like cult, brainwashing mind control etc are removed from the article, stating that it is either extra ordinary claim, or COI or vandalism, whereas self claimed elements such as self realization, awakening et-al are not viewed such ? any explanation from those who have removed it.

Brainwashing and psychological harm caused by Sahaja Yoga on its victim is what is reported and explained in a report, which was submitted to National Assemble of France which was debated and accepted as such, and then published on internet. is this reference not enough ? or is this not extra ordinary that this group was subject to discussion in National Assemble of a republic but these statements are removed from the article, from anon user's who claims that anonymity is used only for administrative tasks. When extra ordinary claim such as self realization is also removed from the article, then it is claimed that that removal is vandalism but removal of brainwashing is not ? please explain.

My request to anon user 124.170.169.XXX is kindly leave the administrative tasks to administrators and if editing article, please use your ID so that it does not create confusing, as your edits may be viewed as trolling. --Cult free world (talk) 11:33, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Any response ? lets discuss the matter here, rather then editing the content, i will not edit the contents but will wait for some more time for input from other user's. It appear's that other editor's are not inclined towards participating in discussion, but only interested in changing the content, i waited for around two day's, and when there was no input from anyone else, i updated the information, now again it is reverted back, and there is no note on talk page !! how do we move ahead from here ? --Cult free world (talk) 06:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Reference for self-realization is from a self published source, and as such, such an extra-ordinary claim, like self-realization cannot be based on primary source whereas brainwashing, and psychological harm is what is outcome of study conducted by a committee appointed by a government. and the report used as the reference, is submitted to national assemble of a republic, is this not a extra-ordinary source for an extra-ordinary claim such as brainwashing ? those who disagree, kindly put forward your view's so that we can move ahead.--Cult free world (talk) 16:41, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

This link is the best link to let the people have their own POV about SY. It's the main things on SY. It's the greatest way to get a proove about it claims and all that... Pls keep it ! from Ag77 [17]

If a self published article can be considered reliable, then a cftf report is also reliable, i have no objection in placing self-realization in article till it is accompanied with mind control and brainwashing. we need to put both pictures, and must not avoid other view's, lets not take the task of spoon feeding, but present both view, and allow reader's to decide what they want to take. self-realization or brainwashing ! please give in your comments so that i can add other view also, so as to balance the article. --Cult free world (talk) 09:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

how wish you to add this input ? In another word, in wich way you wish to ad this ? --Agenor 77 (talk) 13:27, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Next to self-realization. --Cult free world (talk) 13:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Any response ?? --Cult free world (talk) 10:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Have added the statement, if any further issue, discussion is welcome ! --Cult free world (talk) 06:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

if you can wait or if you want to do things by your one, no need to ask for discussion here and there... --Agenor 77 (talk) 08:56, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

I can wait of course, i started this discussion on 19th Jan, and today happens to be 24 jan (IST), the way i have not reverted your addition, but instead waited for you to reply, i expect same, now, the article is balanced, and i hope this will help in triggering debate also, please put forth your concern, lets come to a conclusion, and then if needed, we will edit the article once we agree upon something. I would advice lets not disturb the article from its current shape, as it has both view's, yours as well as mine. Lets start from here. Kindly let us know, your concern. One by one. --Cult free world (talk) 09:05, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga‎; 21:37 . . (+90) . . Cult free world (Talk | contribs) (care to see the talk page ?? this is something which is agreed upon by other editor's.)

Which other editors ? --Agenor 77 (talk) 23:10, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

how wish you to add this input ? In another word, in wich way you wish to ad this ? this was taken as token of acceptance, as there was no further input from you. Plz put forth your concern, self-realization viz-a-viz brainwashing. lets discuss this. ((-: :-)) --Cult free world (talk) 07:07, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

_I understand you took that in the way it soothed you, but actually I was asking you to give me an example of your input.--Agenor 77 (talk) 07:25, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Ok, without getting personal, kindly inform us regarding your objections, as why self realization (from primary source) should be present, but brainwashing (from third party source) should be avoided ? is it only because self-realization is POV of those who are currently involve in the group ! and there should not be any scope of third party reliable input from independent sources ? if you hold other view plz, inform. --Cult free world (talk) 08:13, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia isn't about views, although plenty are expressed here. It is clear that the addition of "brainwashing" by Cult free world is an attempt to discredit the organization, an nothing more, and as such is disruptive. I would urge (as I previously have done) that you request moderation if you continue to add obviously biased material. 124.170.85.216 (talk) 08:00, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

In same breath... what make you feel that self-realization is not a biased view and is not a push from current member's to present a picture what suits them and not what is reffered by a neutral, unbiased, third party source. brainwashing is what is discussed in French national assemble, and hence is added, where as there is no direct reference for something as absured as self-realization defination of this term itself is not clear, why not oppose something which is not coherent with ambience? --Cult free world (talk) 10:14, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

As I've said many times, I think that if charges of brainwashing have been put forward in a reliable source, they should be included. However, perhaps the template isn't nuanced enough to make it clear that aspects like 'brain-washing' and 'self-realisation' are POV. Thus I suggest getting rid of the template, or at least leaving those contentious issues out of the template. --Simon D M (talk) 11:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Neutrality Tag

Is this tag needed any more ? --Cult free world (talk) 11:35, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Quite obviously. 124.170.85.216 (talk) 07:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

ok :) --Cult free world (talk) 10:15, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

The only sources of contention seems to have been commented out, so I've removed it. --Simon D M (talk) 11:23, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

You both are the only sources of contention.
I've removed the third paragraph from the introduction because it is a minority view being pushed by two anti-cult fanatics. 203.110.151.250 (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Where is the minority ? removal of such information from encyclopedia article, is a push to hide facts (well referenced and properly sourced), by brainwashed zombies. --Cult free world (talk) 05:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Here comes the insults once more. --Agenor 77 (talk) 00:57, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

CFW, try growing a brain, then you can wash it, as well as your mouth. 203.110.151.250 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

203.110.151.250, the lead was written in accordance with WP:LEAD. You may also want to review WP:NPA. --Simon D M (talk) 11:59, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't represent the subject, it represents POV - as stated. 203.110.151.250 (talk) 23:39, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}Please put the neutrality tag back on the front of the article. This article is being dominated by anti cult activists who wish to misrepresent the subject for their own purposes. This article does not reflect the subject well and does not reflect a consensus. Why is it that whenever someone tries to push back the tide of negative representations, this page gets frozen?Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 6/editprotected

I really want to be able to take your comments and participation seriously. There are a few things you can do that would help me to do this:

1) create an account and/or do not ip hop.

2) sign your edits

3) focus on content, NOT contributors, actual edits, not hypothetical motives for edits. Thanks! Sethie (talk) 02:29, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

This article is being dominated by anti cult activists who wish to misrepresent the subject for their own purposes.

Needs further elucidation, for proper counter argument.--Cult free world (talk) 16:45, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I would actually very strongly disagree and that line of discussion is not what this page is for.... and if it gets out of hand, I will delete it:

Sethie (talk) 18:00, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}Please put the neutrality tag back on the front of the article. This article is being dominated by anti cult activists.Talk:Sahaja Yoga/Archive 6/editprotected Freelion (talk) 01:34, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Please review WP:NPA. Please focus on content, not contributors. Otherwise, please leave. Sethie (talk) 04:29, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Sethie, the content of this page overwhelmingly reflects the arguments made by anti cult activists against Sahaja Yoga. I'm just stating a fact and am not directing criticism against any particular editor. The very fact that this page has been frozen is proof that there is difference of opinion. I for one have the opinion that the material here is not neutral. On behalf of the editors here who may support the movement, as well as other neutral parties, I request that an administrator put back the tag at the beginning of the article which states that the neutrality of this article is disputed. Freelion (talk) 07:13, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

The page is protected presumably because of repeated undiscussed deletion of swathes of long-standing sourced notable material. We still await the reasoned argument behind those deletions. Incidentally, I left a question on your talk page asking if you are Sahajhist.--Simon D M (talk) 11:02, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

They weren't removed, they were moved to this talk page for discussion. That is because they were not long standing and had not been discussed at all. Please stick to the topic and don't trouble yourself with guessing the identity of editors. Freelion (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

One last time FOCUS ON SPECIFIC EDITS YOU WISH TO SEE CHANGED, NOT CONTRIBUTORS. Not guesses about motives. Etc. If you continue down this path, you will be barred from editing. WP:NPA, WP:AGF are not suggestions, they are guidelines. Follow them, leave, or you will be made to leave. Sethie (talk) 17:39, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Let's talk about the third paragraph: "Sahaja Yoga has been a subject of criticism and has been associated with a number of problems....".

This represents the opinions of a small number of people who have made allegations. Putting this in the introductory paragraph is giving it undue weight.

"Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a cult." - One source also concluded that Sahaja Yoga does not meet the definition of a cult. Does this bear mentioning in the introductory section? The use of the word 'cult' is just slander and putting this in the introductory section is giving it undue weight.

Undue weight is against NPOV so I again request that at the very least an administrator replaces the tag which states that the neutrality of this article is disputed.

Freelion (talk) 11:49, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for re-entering actual dialogue.

If you look in the controversy section, you will see four citations that alledge it is like a cult/cultish/a cult.

If you have a [{WP:RS]] which rebuts these claims, I would be in favor of it being included.

I would be open to changing the lead to "There are some controversies surrounding the movement, including some allegations that the group is a cult."

How does that sound to you? Sethie (talk) 18:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, however I find the phrase "controversies surrounding the movement" is POV and not accurate. I would prefer "criticisms directed at the movement". Freelion (talk) 02:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Awesome. That works for me. Sethie (talk) 04:37, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Inform, who are neutral observers, or at least set out to be, refer to problems and controversies. I don't think they are 'directing criticism'.--Simon D M (talk) 12:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

"Criticism directed at the movement" sounds like diluting the facts, in-order to present a false picture, let the facts speak for itself, it is a fact, that WP:RS has listed this gang group, as a cult, there is no denying fact that there are numerous controversies which surround this gang group, why should controversies be depicted as criticism when they are not ?

--Cult free world (talk) 07:32, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Your "gang" jokes are unhelpful. Please review WP:CIVILITY

Please notice that Freelion and I both agreed to include the cult allegation in the lead!

As for controvery/criticsm wording- I personally don't care. Sethie (talk) 07:44, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Noticed that before, and that was precisely the reason for gang!! it is how you formulate a statement, that matter's, it is wording only which indicates the truth, and my objection is for wording only, in any case the cultish stuff cannot be omitted from the lead, we need to zero down on wordings only, if that is already not reasonable, which i feel is, no need to change the wording as it simply states the facts as is, no modification and no violation of wp policies, including WP:IAR. --Cult free world (talk) 08:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Please stop your overt violations of WP:CIVILITY. How on Earth are we going to be able to dialogue with people throwing insults at each other or the subject matter? Seriously CFW, if you can't play nice, go find another sandbox. This page is locked because of dumb comments like your "gang" thing. So keep it up, the page will stay locked.Sethie (talk) 09:05, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

That's the reason why I do not participate much now, MAny editors has been banned for nothing from a so called admin of WP here, and this CFW harass and/or insult editors, subject matter on and on. I really tought that WP was a serious thing, but I really doscover that it's worst than usenet here. --Agenor 77 (talk) 09:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you feel, gang is objectionable, i suggest, please read gang, avoid prejudice ! --Cult free world (talk) 12:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

If you continue on this course of action, eventually, you'll be booted, especially from this page, which has been through so much nonsense. Would you be willing to leave out all personal comments, insults, etc. and just focus on changes to the article, without your personal commentary on the subject of the article? Sethie (talk) 18:04, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Point out the specific statement, which tantamount to nonsense, personal comments, insult etc. how long has it been that you are involved with the nonsense you are referring to on this page ? --Cult free world (talk) 19:42, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

CFW is just trying to stall the process. Do we have an agreement on the wording Sethie? Freelion (talk) 03:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

As mentioned above, Inform, who are neutral observers, or at least set out to be, refer to problems and controversies. It would be wrong to say they are 'directing criticism'. The suggested wording does not accord with the sources. --Simon D M (talk) 09:45, 12 February 2008 (UTC)

Inform only reflects the "directed criticism", that is by a small number of authors (trying to sell books), some vigilante ex-members and newspapers who are only reporting about the vigilante ex-members (a negative slant sells more papers). I'm sure that some of these sources would love to believe that their efforts result in controversy "surrounding" the movement but that is just vanity. In truth, criticism is directed at the movement from a small number of sources (minority view). Freelion (talk) 02:07, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Everyone outside the cult hold other view, on the contrary, it is majority view, newspaper and media are considered reliable source of information even according to wikipedia standard also, they are not taken as critical but informative. I just came across good wikipedia article, may be relevant here, hallucination--Cult free world (talk) 05:41, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Inform warns against using media reports as objective references about new religious movements due to their interest in creating sensationalist stories. Likewise authors who write books on the subject have their sales in mind and write for their audience. Freelion (talk) 05:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Same holds true for cults as well, they (the cults) have tight mind control in view when manipulating and brainwashing the victim. Book are in market for sale only, but cults lie for selling their product, use deception for fooling innocent victims, in any case, books and newspaper's ARE considered reliable source of information, for wikipedia article, even though they are in market for sale !! once again, they are considered source of information and not critical view. WHY ? ask wikipedia, why they take newspapers and books as reliable source of information for any article ! --Cult free world (talk) 07:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Freelion, INFORM based their comments on all the information they had to hand which includes extensive contacts with member, ex-members, parents of members, etc. One of the past directors even wrote her PhD and a book based on participant observation. INFORM also draw on a wider knowledge of similar movements and the social scientific study or religion. They don't just 'reflect' one party's opinions. --Simon D M (talk) 11:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

N Declined. No consensus for the proposed edit. Sandstein (talk) 23:26, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Beliefs

"Coney reported hearing a number of Sahaja Yogi speakers at a national puja "talk about the ways in which they disguised some of their beliefs when in contact with non-members." She also reports facing a challenge in getting Sahaja Yogis to let her "get behind the public facade." Coney wrote that because "established devotees are usually prepared to discuss their more 'advanced' beliefs only with people who have followed the practices laid out by Sri Mataji for some time, Sahaja Yogis at different stages of membership have recourse to different amounts of information.""

"It is sometimes suggested that Sahaja Yoga beliefs, seen as re-discovered ancient knowledge by Sahaja Yogis, be treated as hypothesis until found to be truth. On the other hand, Nirmala Srivastava has stated that "the method of science is not employed in Sahaja Yoga" as it "is already researched.""

The above section has been removed for discussion. At the moment it is a load of referenced POV hogwash designed not to inform, but to attack the movement. Re-write and discuss before re-inserting. 203.110.151.250 (talk) 01:04, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The fact that it is refferenced would actually mean that it isn't POV hogwash. It may or may not be hogwash, but per WP:V that is irrelevabt, the threshhold for inclusion is verifiability, not truth.

The first paragraph, btw is rock solid, with EXCELLENT references, no discussion is needed for it's inclusion.Sethie (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

The 2nd paragraph does have weaker refferences. Sethie (talk) 17:51, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Medical Studies/broken structure

{{editprotected}} The medical studies subsection should come under the meditation subsection, ie requires an extra '=' each side of the heading. The long standing structure seems to have been broken in recent frantic editing. I do not believe this is controversial. --Simon D M (talk) 08:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done Agreed. The section in question seems to reference medical studies on meditation, so being a subsection of the topic referred to is reasonable. UltraExactZZ ^Claims ~ Evidence 15:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Self-realization

I've proposed moving some content about this tradition's view of Self-realization from that article onto this page. Discussion is on the self-realization article's talk page. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:22, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Secte Apocalyptique

SY is describe as an Eastern Apocalyptic sect in this French Government report: AU NOM DE LA COMMISSION D'ENQUÊTE (1) SUR LES SECTES.

See also: Parliamentary Commission on Cults in France#Commission of 1995

Perhaps this is worthy of mention.

--Simon D M (talk) 14:47, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Not worthy at all, SY is not a apocalyptic --Ag 05:54, 26 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs)

The sources show otherwise, not only this one but many other's including GdeK's books which a full of talk of Kalki, the Day of Judgement, the Earth having reached a stage of great evil, etc, etc. Really there should be a section in the article on the Millenarian aspect of SY. Of course this is buried in the usual public presentations (Jagbir Singh's site excepted). --Simon D M (talk) 13:39, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any links between Day of Judgement and apocalypse. Actually, what do call apocalypse ? --Ag 16:18, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs)

What's the use of bot if they can't read properly ? LOL --Ag 08:59, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs)

This fits in well in the "cult" section which already discusses the French view of the group. But I can't add it, I can't read the original french. - Owlmonkey (talk) 19:14, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Have you seen what happen inbelgium ?--Ag 19:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs)

Do you mean Cults_and_governments#Belgium? Please sign your comments using tilde's, thanks! - Owlmonkey (talk) 00:37, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The BE Justice has recently condamned the BE GOV to have declare that SY is a dangerous cult. Stop harrassing me,thanks 0> signature with tild, as everywehre (learn to read please, thanks) --Ag 06:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs)

Sounds like something else to add to this article. Do you have an English language citation for that news item? Thanks. (I see your hand typed signature, but it lacks links to your user details. The standard is to use four tildes ~~~~ to have your signature and talk page links automatically added. The SineBot is adding yours after the fact) - Owlmonkey (talk) 07:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Thank you to use my talk page --Ag 07:48, 28 April 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs)

Nirmala Srivastava section

I would suggest expanding the following sentence:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made a Unique Discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse[18] after attending a Rajneesh meditation camp in Nargol on May 5, 1970.[19]

into the following new paragraph:

Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse[20]. She had previously visited different religious people including Rajneesh[21] and found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. Finding the situation hopeless, she began to search inside herself for a solution.

Freelion (talk) 07:05, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

The section in question is for SY beliefs about Nirmala Srivastava, not a description of her version of her 'spiritual journey'. --Simon D M (talk) 09:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

looks like a good expansion to me and a good source. - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:58, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

This expands on Shri Mataji's presence at the camp and avoids the apparent misrepresentation that she made the unique discovery as a result of being at the camp. In the following I have only added the date:

Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse[22] on May 5, 1970. She had previously visited different religious people including Rajneesh[23] and found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. Finding the situation hopeless, she began to search inside herself for a solution.

Freelion (talk) 03:05, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

very good paragraph --Ag 18:52, 22 May 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs)

{{editprotected}}The above suggestion seems to have been agreed upon. Freelion (talk) 01:07, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

All this is covered on the Nirmala Srivastava page. No need to repeat here. If really necessary a see template can be added, but the article in question is already linked. The issue of Nirmala Srivastava's relationship with Rajneesh is highly controversial and there is no need to multiply arenas for edit wars. I also note the the revised wording drops out the reliably sourced and notable fact of her attendance at his meditation camp in Nargol. --Simon D M (talk) 10:00, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

The camp is mentioned in the Nirmala Srivastava article. The only controversial thing with the page in its current form is the way it is worded. It incorrectly suggests that the camp had something to do with the unique discovery. There is no mention of Shri Mataji's opinion of Rajneesh and others and the reason for her inward search. It needs to be changed and clearing this up will prevent further edit wars. Freelion (talk) 05:43, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

The so-called 'unique discovery' of Sahaja Yoga took place at the Rajneesh meditation camp where Rajneesh was talking about 'Sahaja Yoga'. --Simon D M (talk) 09:55, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Rajneesh's techniques bear no similarity to SY. The existing paragraph is wrong and this is a simple clarification. You are just trying being disruptive. Freelion (talk) 12:56, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You have been asked many times to concentrate on the edits, not the editors. --Simon D M (talk) 08:22, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

What I am proposing is the following:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse[24] on May 5, 1970. She had previously visited different religious people including Rajneesh[25] and found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. Finding the situation hopeless, she began to search inside herself for a solution.
Left in its current form, the paragraph incorrectly implies that Nirmala Srivastava somehow got the idea of the 'unique discovery' from the camp. This new reference clarifies the event. Freelion (talk) 08:23, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Why 'previously visited'? She was visiting the Rajneesh meditation camp which was ongoing on 5 May. What do you think she was referring to when she said "I was with lots of people who were seeking"? Also she didn't visit Muktananda till 6 May when she went back to Bombay in the same car as Rajneesh and they stopped off for tea at Muktananda's ashram. Also I'm not sure that you can say that she found them promiscuous etc, maybe better to say that she has said that she found them promiscuous etc. --Simon D M (talk) 12:05, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Drop the word "previously" then, it still makes sense. The rest of it is accurate to the source. Freelion (talk) 04:25, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You can't just be 'accurate to the source', it needs NPOV wording. --Simon D M (talk) 19:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay then:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse[26] on May 5, 1970. She visited different religious people including Rajneesh[27] and said that she found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. She said she found the situation hopeless and began searching inside herself for a solution.
Let me know if there are any more probs. Freelion (talk) 23:57, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

On second thoughts, I think we may both be barking up the wrong tree here. This section should be about Sahaja Yoga beliefs rather than what actually happened or what is reported to have happened in reliable sources. If possible, we should base the section on 3rd party reliable sources about what Sahaja Yogis believe, and we only really have Coney. I'll try and look up what she says on this matter. --Simon D M (talk) 10:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

This section is about Nirmala Srivastava. There is already a section on Beliefs which features Coney. At the moment we are just correcting a misleading paragraph, which in its current form incorrectly implies that Nirmala Srivastava somehow got the idea of her 'unique discovery' from attending a Rajneesh camp. All we are doing is adding a new reference which clarifies the event. I believe the wording is NPOV and accurately reflects the source. Can we agree on this? Freelion (talk) 01:25, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This sub-section is within the Beliefs section, it is Sahaja Yoga->Beliefs->Nirmala Srivastava, it is beliefs about NS. There is a seperate article about NS. --Simon D M (talk) 09:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Then why does it suggest that Shri Mataji somehow got the idea of her 'unique discovery' from attending a Rajneesh camp? This is misinformation and this new source clarifies it. Do you have a problem with the new source? No. Do you have a problem with the wording? No, it's been discussed and rectified to the satisfaction of all parties. Freelion (talk) 03:26, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Give me some time to look at the 3rd party RS. If we're going to make a change, it might as well be for something good. --Simon D M (talk) 09:16, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

No way! This is all about you stalling for time! This is about the simple addition of a new (third party) source to correct a misleading paragraph. Three editors have agreed to it and the wording is NPOV. This should be enough. Stalling for time is just disruption. No one can fault the new source or the wording - there is no legitimate objection to the addition of this new source. Freelion (talk) 03:06, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Are you seriously trying to say that 'DeviFilm' (see http://www.nirmaladevi-film.de/) is nothing to do with Sahaja Yoga & Nirmala Devi and that Carolin Dassel is not a Sahaja Yogini? Are you seriously trying to say that this fawning puff piece is on a par with serious academic research like Coney's? --Simon D M (talk) 10:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not a puff piece, it's more like a frank and honest look at the movement. It was co-produced with the University of Munich Television and Film and Bayerischer Rundfunk Claudia Gladziejewski. I don't know if Dassel is a Sahaja Yogi, it doesn't really matter. Just because someone has tried and experienced the benefits of the meditation, does that make them a Sahaja Yogi? Don't forget that Coney is just a sociologist who, as you have revealed, took specific measures to avoid experiencing any benefit from the meditation. (Remove Personal Attacks) But we don't have to compare every new source to Coney and this discussion is not about Coney, it's about the insertion of a new legitimate source; the simple process of which you seem determined to disrupt. Freelion (talk) 01:42, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Just because 3rd party bodies were induced to fund/co-operate, it doesn't stop it from being sef-published. SY takes its trademarks very seriously (they even fought and lost a WIPO case), it is ludicrous to suggest that they allowed a non Sahaja Yogi to use nirmaladevi in the domain name of their film production company. It is self-published and fawning. Pls direct us to one single episode where there is a trace of criticism or any truly difficult questioning. Is criticism of SY even mentioned in the film? No. Self-published and fawning. --Simon D M (talk) 11:12, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

At first glance, because the Nirmala subsection is part of the Belief heading, I expected to see something about how the belief system related specifically to the founder or how the founder influenced the beliefs. Or how the start of the system inspired particular beliefs. I'm not sure that section starts that way currently. It sounds like one contention now in part is the degree to which Rajneesh was an influence. Is that right? Also, where did Nirmala receive spiritual training before her moment of primordial kundalini raising?

How about something like this, which makes it specifically about where the beliefs came from including the initial inspiration:

The founder Nirmala Srivastava was inspired to begin the movement after disappointment with other teachers and after what she describes as a unique discovery on May 5, 1970 for granting Self Realisation en masse. It's not clear if her beliefs were strongly influenced by any earlier movements or lineages. The movement's biography mentions her training in Mahatma Gandhi's ashram. Sudhir Kakar wrote that Nirmala Srivastava was closely associated with Rajneesh during her training. A website of the movement however claims she only went to one of his programs.

It feels like there may be more we could say about how the experience of disillusionment contributed to teachings on morality in the movements beliefs, but I'm not sure what that would be. Know of any analysis along those lines? The connection between her medical training and other beliefs is already discussed earlier in the article. - Owlmonkey (talk) 20:24, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for joining us again Owlmonkey, you are a breath of fresh air. In addition to your suggestion I think we could effectively express Nirmala Srivastava's disillusionment and value of morality by including part of the new reference that I have been suggesting:
She visited different religious people including Rajneesh[28] and said that she found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual.
This reference also serves to distance Nirmala Srivastava from the teachings of Rajneesh. Freelion (talk) 10:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The point of the article is not to distance Nirmala Srivastava from Rajneesh, it is to summarise the reliable sources. This particular section is currently about beliefs about Srivastava. We could have another section in this article or in the Nirmala Srivastava article about influences on Srivastava, or we could combine both in this section. The chakras & nadis section already mentions Vasant Rele as an influence (possibly indirect), but that information sits quite well where it is already. We know Rajneesh talked about Sahaja Yoga on 5 May 1970 at the meditation camp in Nargol where Srivastava was attending, so he is a likely source for the name. --Simon D M (talk) 11:19, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Oh, are you reading the outline to mean beliefs 'about' her? I was taking it to be how the beliefs were influenced by her and her lineage. i'm assuming the belief's section is about sahaja yoga primarily. maybe we should move this subsection out, it is a little odd to have a subsection about her in the outline within the beliefs major section. she's not a 'belief' particularly. Perhaps move her subsection under 'organization' or create a new top level section about 'origins'? The latter might be appropriate to start. - Owlmonkey (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The section was set up as beliefs about her. The divinity of Nirmala Srivastava is a cardinal tenet, if not the cardinal tenet, of Sahaja Yoga. Coney devotes much of her book to how Sahaja Yogis learn to believe that Nirmala Srivastava is the Goddess. Nadis and chakras are not conceived of as beliefs, but there are beliefs about them, and that is what that section is about. Same goes for kundalini, healing, etc. --Simon D M (talk) 09:32, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

As you say, this section is on beliefs about Nirmala Srivastava by Sahaja Yogis. The existing first sentence tells some basic facts:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made a Unique Discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse[29] after attending a Rajneesh meditation camp in Nargol on May 5, 1970.[30]
However, by the way it is worded, the reader may get the false impression that Nirmala Srivastave received her unique discovery as a result of attending the Rajneesh camp. Her own words shed more light on the issue and the substitution of the following will elucidate more of the story to the reader:
Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse[31] on May 5, 1970. She visited different religious people including a Rajneesh meditation camp[32] and said that she found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. She said she found the situation hopeless and began searching inside herself for a solution.
Simon D M is attempting to block the inclusion of this new reference by labeling it "self published". He accusing Sahaja Yoga of inducing the University of Munich Television and Film and Bayerischer Rundfunk Claudia Gladziejewski into co-producing the film but offers no proof. It is a baseless accusation in an attempt to discredit a perfectly legitimate reference. The film "Nirmala Devi: Freedom and Liberation" contains a quote by Nirmala Devi herself which is quite relevant to this paragraph. In the past, Simon D M has been happy to use quotes of Sahaja Yoga's founder in a pejorative sense no matter where they come from. It is interesting to note his double standards here. To summarise, the first sentence is misleading and the subject needs to be elucidated. Freelion (talk) 03:07, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Freelion, you write "the reader may get the false impression that Nirmala Srivastave received her unique discovery as a result of attending the Rajneesh camp". Your claim that such an impression is false is just your original research. The article presently just states facts. We could improve it by adding material from from reliable 3rd party sources. See WP:RS. --Simon D M (talk) 08:55, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's not original research when I have a reliable third party source, which I have provided. See previous argument - you have no cause to reject this reference, apart from it not confirming your own POV. Freelion (talk) 03:14, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The real 3rd party reliable sources (Kakar and Coney) do associate Nirmala Devi with Rajneesh. The source which you laughably purport to be a 3rd party reliable source (in fact produced by a Sahaja Yogini from Munich who calls her production company devi-film which has a url of nirmaladevi-film.de and only links to other official Sahaja Yoga sites) in no way shows a certain impression given by the facts, accepted by the real 3rd party reliable sources, is false. Even if this fawning puff piece were an RS, it would be just one amongst a number and could not be used to invalidate others. --Simon D M (talk) 09:08, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Again you ignore the fact that this film has been produced in collaboration with two other parties: the University of Munich Television and Film and Bayerischer Rundfunk Claudia Gladziejewski. Just because someone has tried the technique and even practises it, does not disqualify anything they might say about it. So your argument that this is not a reliable source is bunk. This source does not necessarily invalidate other sources and it should be included so that the reader can make up their own mind. Furthermore, as previously stated, the source contains the words of the founder herself and her words have been used before without regard to where they come from. So there you are Simon, all your arguments are gone. Unless the fact that you simply didn't like the film count, which it doesn't. Your personal abuse of the quality of the source only serves to highlight your agressive anti-Sahaja Yoga agenda. Freelion (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

We have already been all through the systematic and intentional misrepresentation of Sahaja Yoga as a 'technique'. It is a new religious movement. This is established. Nirmala Srivastava is worshipped as the Supreme Goddess/Adi Shakti by her devotees, the Sahaja Yogis. Please don't tell me you are now seeking to deny that or that you regard the productions of Sahaja Yogis to be 3rd party reliable sources on a par with independent academic research like Coney's. --Simon D M (talk) 12:20, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

WP:SPS states that "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable." Unless you can prove that Nirmala Devi or Sahaja Yoga payed to have this film created by 3 separate parties, including the University of Munich, then you can't call this a self published source.

By "on a par with Coney" you probably mean an academic and/or peer-reviewed source. On this, WP:RS says: "Academic and peer-reviewed publications are highly valued and usually the most reliable sources in areas where they are available, such as history, medicine and science, although some material may be outdated by more recent research, or controversial in the sense that there are alternative theories. Material from reliable non-academic sources may also be used in these areas, particularly if they are respected mainstream publications. Wikipedia articles should strive to cover all major and significant-minority scholarly interpretations on topics for which scholarly sources exist, and all major and significant-minority views that have been published in other reliable sources. The appropriateness of any source always depends on the context."
If I was you I would abandon your attempts to discredit the film "Nirmala Devi: Freedom and Liberation" as a reliable source. People might get the idea that you have an agenda to misrepresent Sahaja Yoga. Freelion (talk) 05:04, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

For the sake of the point of this post, which may have been lost after all this debate, I will repeat my suggestion. I would like to replace the following sentence in the Nirmala Srivastava section:

Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made a Unique Discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse[33] after attending a Rajneesh meditation camp in Nargol on May 5, 1970.[34]

with the following new paragraph:

Nirmala Srivastava is said to have made the unique discovery of a way to grant Self Realisation en masse[35] on May 5, 1970. She visited different religious people including Rajneesh[36] and said that she found them to be greedy and promiscuous rather than spiritual. She said she found the situation hopeless and began searching inside herself for a solution.

Does anyone have any objections? Freelion (talk) 01:51, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no further objection, would an administrator kindly do the above edit. This should be a new first paragraph in the Nirmala Srivastava section. The next paragraph continues with "Nirmala Srivastava, who claims to reside in the Sahasrara chakra..." Freelion (talk) 00:32, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:56, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

Chakras and nadis section

There is a problem with the Chakras and nadis section - Kakar has been incorrectly quoted. The words about Shri Mataji having been a former medical student have been omitted from the quoted reference. Also, in the Chakras and nadis section, the phrase "Kakar also writes that Nirmala Srivastava, as a former medical student has sought to give the theory a scientific, neurological veneer by..." can not be justified by referring to page 197 of the text. On page 197 he writes "Mataji, following the theories of Vasant Rele, equates sushumna [nadi] with the parasympathetic nervous system, ida [nadi] with the left and pingala [nadi] with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system and the chakras with the plexuses." These mistakes have been corrected and I suggest that the following be used as a replacement paragraph:

Sahaja Yoga, like many Eastern and New Age systems, believes that in addition to our physical body there is a subtle body comprised of nadis (channels) and chakras (energy centers), which look after our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well being. These concepts, first found in ancient Indian scriptures, have been added to by Nirmala Srivastava. Kakar writes that her additions to this widespread traditional 'tantric' model include giving it a scientific, neurological veneer, the elaboration of the health aspects and the introduction of notions of traditional Christian morality. Kakar believes that Nirmala Srivastava has followed the theories of Vasant Rele, equating the sushumna [nadi] with the parasympathetic nervous system, ida [nadi] with the left and pingala [nadi] with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system and the chakras with the plexuses.

Freelion (talk) 03:24, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

It is true that p197 does not justify it but p196 does, and that is why p196 is the page cited. I can't see what your problem is. --Simon D M (talk) 09:57, 23 May 2008 (UTC)

If I may politely say so, the problem is with the article, not the editor, Simon. The sentence "Kakar also writes that Nirmala Srivastava, as a former medical student has sought to give the theory a scientific, neurological veneer by following the theories of Vasant Rele..." Kakar never wrote that or made that connection, it's just a repetition of something already quoted from page 196 and the editor is trying to link them together. So all I've done basically is remove that repetition and introduce the ref from p197 with "Kakar believes that Nirmala Srivastava has followed the theories of Vasant Rele" Freelion (talk) 05:59, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}}Any objections? Freelion (talk) 08:28, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree the repetition is stylistically bad. I guess you could argue there is OR in the connection between the 'neurological veneer' and the theories of Vasant Rele equating the sushumna [nadi] with the parasympathetic nervous system, ida [nadi] with the left and pingala [nadi] with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system and the chakras with the plexuses. However, it is an absolutely obvious connection - the comment on p196 if clearly by way of introduction to the expanded comments on p197. If we're going to nitpick over such obvious connections in the same passage, I guess 80% of wikipedia could be nitpicked away - anything where 2 ideas not mentioned in the same page are related in ways obviously intended in the sources. Nevertheless, the connection is so obvious that there really is no need to spell it out for the reader, thus I suggest the following for the whole section which makes some other minor improvements (removing unsourced addition from Cult Free World and moving the Sahaja Yoga specific info on chakras to the final para):

Sahaja Yoga, like many Eastern and New Age systems, believes that in addition to our physical body there is a subtle body comprised of nadis (channels) and chakras (energy centers). Kakar writes that Nirmala Srivastava's additions to this widespread traditional 'tantric' model lie in traditional Christian morality, an elaboration of the health aspects and a scientific, neurological veneer. Kakar also writes that Nirmala Srivastava, "following the theories of Vasant Rele, equates sushumna [nadi] with the parasympathetic nervous system, ida [nadi] with the left and pingala [nadi] with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system and the chakras with the plexuses."

Sahaja Yoga teaches that there are seven main chakras that each chakra possesses different qualities and look after different aspects of our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well being.. Neglect of these qualities is said to damage them and bring disease. Each chakra has a presiding deity who may become deactivated in extreme cases causing cancer. For example, the deities residing in the Sahasrara chakra are said to be Kalki and Adi Shakti and the chakra is said to be damaged by atheism and doubt in God

I hope this is acceptable. --Simon D M (talk) 13:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Not bad. I've reintroduced the words "as a former medical student she has sought to give it a scientific, neurological veneer" into the reference from the source. Made the paraphrasing of the additions to this widespread model into the same order as they appear in the source. Fixed a dead link (after "Disease is said to occur when the subtle qualities of the chakras are neglected or denied.") Freelion (talk) 02:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Sahaja Yoga, like many Eastern and New Age systems, believes that in addition to our physical body there is a subtle body comprised of nadis (channels) and chakras (energy centers). Kakar writes that Nirmala Srivastava's additions to this widespread traditional 'tantric' model include giving it a scientific, neurological veneer, the elaboration of the health aspects and the introduction of notions of traditional Christian morality. Kakar also writes that Nirmala Srivastava, "following the theories of Vasant Rele, equates sushumna [nadi] with the parasympathetic nervous system, ida [nadi] with the left and pingala [nadi] with the right sides of the sympathetic nervous system and the chakras with the plexuses."

Sahaja Yoga teaches that there are seven main chakras and that each chakra possesses different qualities and looks after different aspects of our physical, mental, emotional and spiritual well being. Disease is said to occur when the subtle qualities of the chakras are neglected or denied. Each chakra has a presiding deity who may become deactivated in extreme cases causing cancer. For example, the deities residing in the Sahasrara chakra are said to be Kalki and Adi Shakti and the chakra is said to be damaged by atheism and doubt in God

I've taken the liberty of making a few minor & non-controversial changes in the text above. Actually the link wasn't dead, but the change doesn't matter and I've repeated it in the other place where the same page was referenced. Let's go with the above. --Simon D M (talk) 10:11, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

• Per the apparent consensus here, I've copied the text above into the article. I'm glad to see that you two have agreed on this. Thanks for setting aside differences and working together for the good of the project. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 10:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cult allegations section

{{editprotected}}
I have a new highly relevant reference for this section.
In 2008 the Belgian newspapers De Morgen, De Standaard and the Evening reported that the Country Court of Brussels ordered the Belgian state to pay 1,500 Euros compensation to Sahaja Yoga for wrongly labeling the movement as a sect (cult). The Centre of Information and Opinion on Harmful Sectarian Organizations (CIAOSN) had given an unfavourable report on the meditation movement which was found to be unobjective and had resulted in the movement being defamed.
Freelion (talk) 06:11, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Any objections? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 03:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Looks factual to me and the source looks fine. The source did mention however that the state has appealed the decision, which implies that they still believe in the cult designation. I'm fine with it added with that additional note that "The state has appealed the decision" or something similar. - Owlmonkey (talk) 04:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok then, how about:
In 2008 the Belgian newspapers De Morgen, De Standaard and the Evening reported that the Country Court of Brussels ordered the Belgian state to pay 1,500 Euros compensation to Sahaja Yoga for wrongly labeling the movement as a sect (cult). The Centre of Information and Opinion on Harmful Sectarian Organizations (CIAOSN) had given an unfavourable report on the meditation movement which was found to be unobjective and had resulted in the movement being defamed. The state appealed.
Freelion (talk) 08:26, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't see any further discussion, so I assume this is acceptable to all. Is this an addition or a replacement? ·:· Will Beback ·:· 05:35, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

This is an addition to the Cult allegations section. Freelion (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 06:05, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Clarification of the designation of Cult for Sahaj Yoga....

The CIAOSN report is [here!]

with this court-ordered disclaimer (at the end):

1° l'avis du 7 mars 2005 ne signifie pas que l’a.s.b.l. Sahaja Yoga België doit être considérée comme une organisation sectaire nuisible ou comme une subdivision d'une organisation sectaire nuisible ; (translated: The advice of Mar.7, 2005 does not mean that the "a.s.b.l. Sahaja Yoga Belgium is to be considered a harmful sectarian organization or a subdivision of a harmful sectarian organization.)

2° l'arrêt est consultable sur le site internet du C.I.A.O.S.N (Arrêt 12/06/2006) (Translated: This arrest is to be placed on the internet sit of the C.I.A.O.S.N. (Arrest 12/06/2006)

I just read the article by CIAOSN and the court ruling. I am fluent in both languages. The report stands as is with the inclusion. (see above).

My take (POV) is that the designation of "harmful sect" ("Secte nuisible" in French) does not necessarily apply in all circumstances as some meditators will come for the calm atmosphere and it will not necessarily be harmful to them. Some other meditators will get more heavily involved in the organization. So the courts has ruled that the addendum stating that the report does not mean that Sahaja Yoga is a "harmful sect" is added at the end of the report even though the content of the report is not altered and is not "illegal" or slanderous.

The brand of "cult" or "harmful secte" seems to be what the Belgian court does not want, even by implication. In other words, an article can describe the activities of an organization, without the BRAND (name calling), as the brand has different meaning for different people and cultures. Belgium has 6 official languages.

4d-Don--don (talk) 16:13, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree that even in English, the word 'cult' is used unscientifically and often gets used as a convenient disparaging label. Freelion (talk) 02:21, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Cult allegations

One can't get away from using the word "cult" if one quotes newspaper articles, as the "sensational" sells newspapers, and the reporters are not highly knowledgeable of the societal aspects of "branding" a group as the courts are. But, when refering to lists by "government agencies" one could use the cautionary approach. A group can be said to be on a list prepared by a committee, but that does not mean to imply, as the courts in Belgium have ruled, that all groups on such a list all have the same level of dangerosity or "cultish abherrations" or are necessarily "harmful sects" in all circumstances. It is the "harmful" aspect that can be deemed un-desireable, as all religions can be defined as "cults" or "sects" of some sort or other. Some Holy Books of "official" Religions are overtly more dangerous than Sahaja Yoga. Some are "cults of a living Personality" and some are cults of a "mystical" figure (historic or mythic) or of a principle and some (many) have political, nationalist, etc. undertones. In France (government circles), the words now "in vogue" are "sectarian abherrations", to define the "harmful" part of the "sectes".

Using the "journalistic" approach in wording ("according to"...etc.) and in sourcing the "cult" allegations and statements, would go a long way in balancing the "cult" or "harmful sect" or "sectarian abherration" aspect of the article. It is not a fact that Sahaja Yoga is a cult. It is an "allegation". Expose the information with journalistic phraseology without using such statements as: "various groups have deemed Sahaja Yoga a cult" approach. Source all allegations individually. The "advice" of the court in Belgium can also be added to the article as is.

4d-don--don (talk) 17:34, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Introduction section

In the light of what 4d-don said above, I'm sure we could do a lot better than the existing third paragraph in the introduction section:
Sahaja Yoga has been a subject of criticism and has been associated with a number of problems, some arising from "Sahaja Yoga's emphasis on complete devotion to Nirmala Srivastava". Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a cult.
Thank-you, 4d-don, for joining this discussion. Freelion (talk) 10:27, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Refer to WP:LEAD. The lead summarises the article. There is a section on cult allegation and this is referred to in the lead as per WP policy. --Simon D M (talk) 11:21, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

As per 4d-don's suggestions and WP:LEAD, I propose the following substitution for the above mentioned sentence:
Several newspapers and a French National assembly report have referred to the movement a cult but the Country Court of Brussels ruled that Sahaja Yoga had been wrongly labeled as a cult and awarded compensation.
Freelion (talk) 03:38, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

The place to get into details is the article itself, the lead should be a neutral summary. --Simon D M (talk) 08:56, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

It's a fact. I agree with Freelion --Ag 17:18, 16 June 2008 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Agenor 77 (talk • contribs)

The introduction is currently not a neutral summary. The cult allegations section has changed and this should be reflected in the introduction as per my suggested text. Freelion (talk) 03:17, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Everything in the lead is still true. SY has been associated with a number of problems and has been referred to as a cult by others. This has not changed. It is simple fact. --Simon D M (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

The section has a new reference which refutes the cult allegations. Be honest Simon, unless you admit your anti Sahaja Yoga agenda, you really have no basis for disagreeing with this new wording. It is a concise and accurate summary, I've even streamlined it some more, just for you. All I am talking about changing is
Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a cult.
to the following:
Several newspapers and a French report have branded the movement a cult but a Brussels court ruled that Sahaja Yoga had been wrongly labeled as a cult.
Freelion (talk) 02:25, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

do you really not understand that it's not about sources refuting each other? Various sources say various things and these are reported. The lead is just a very brief summary of the content to come. We could have something like "Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a cult, an appellation that has been the subject of dispute." --Simon D M (talk) 12:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

In the interests of brevity, I suggest the following; it's shorter than your version:
Several newspapers and a French report have branded the movement a cult but a Brussels court ruled otherwise.
Freelion (talk) 05:22, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

As the ruling is being appealed, I think my version is better. --Simon D M (talk) 09:24, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, it is still being disputed. So how about the following, which is more descriptive, but only slightly longer:
Several newspapers and a French report have referred to the movement as a cult, a branding that has been disputed in a Belgium court.
Would anyone else like to comment? Freelion (talk) 01:30, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Since there is no further objection, please replace the existing 3rd paragraph in the intoduction:
Sahaja Yoga has been a subject of criticism and has been associated with a number of problems, some arising from "Sahaja Yoga's emphasis on complete devotion to Nirmala Srivastava". Various sources have also described Sahaja Yoga as a cult.
with the following:
Several newspapers and a French report have referred to the movement as a cult, a branding that has been disputed in a Belgium court.
Freelion (talk) 00:10, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Done. ·:· Will Beback ·:· 09:58, 24 June 2008 (UTC)